The new ‘Iron Lady’ comes to tea

She came, she saw, she spoke and she conquered a few sceptics with her neat logic and undoubted enthusiasm. But Hillary Clinton's main strength is perhaps her genuine interest in my country, India. She was here earlier this week, speaking of many issues that concerned not only India and the United States as friends and political allies, such as they are, but the subcontinent as a whole and its people in general. While the eyes of the world were fixed on her clothes, her hair, her mien and her handshakes, we looked into what she was saying and wondered whether it was more eyewash than concrete plans to get things moving, to make this part of the world a safer place to live in, to change certain realities that, for the world, are not exactly positive and progressive.

Clinton's speech wherever she went focussed on her "vision for the 21st century" and the desire of the United States to "forge multi-faceted ties with India". Her reason: "We understand that much of the history of the 21st century will be written in Asia…and that much of the future of Asia will be shaped by decisions not just by the Indian government but by governments across India and by the 1.3 billion people who live in this country," according to her and so, presumably, her government. Even as China is a nation that has perhaps the strongest and more enduring ties with the United States, a fact that has been proven again and again through time, we found – as we have known for a while – that the American politic looks at us to be a "steward" in the region, a presence that will set the standards and the rules for the behaviour of governments across this part of the world. And the reason for this is fairly simple, one that we well recognise and accept as fact: India is, after all, the largest country in the subcontinent and can channel that power into being the most influential. If we do things right, that is.

But one aspect of existence in the region is of concern now, has been for a while and will remain so, until it is dealt with in a more effective and permanent manner: counter-terrorism. This was the prime focus this time, since Mumbai became the victim of terrorism once again just a few days ago, when three bombs exploded in the most crowded parts of the city, one quickly after the other…and then the third. The United States, in a message and via Clinton, has once again pledged its full support to Indian efforts to deal with terrorist threats and with security to prevent such activities, and has also promised to stress the point with Pakistan – often the first suspect in any terror events on Indian soil – in its drive to 'clean up' the region. In this direction, Clinton has suggested that India should be more proactive and strong in its responses to any threats and actions that jeopardise the security of the subcontinent.

As she put it, "India's leadership has the potential to positively shape the future of the Asia-Pacific… and we encourage you not just to look east, but continue to engage and act east as well," and play its role as an ally of the United States in regional meets such as ASEAN and the East Asia Summit planned for later this year. As she said, "We are betting that India's vibrant pluralistic society will inspire others to follow a similar path of tolerance. We are making this bet not out of blind faith but because we have watched your progress with great admiration."

On the whole, Clinton's visit to my country was seen as a positive one, full of promise for the future and for increased interactions and cooperation between India and the United States, And she left us with three key agreements: an "end-use monitoring" deal that will give the United States the ability and freedom to track arms supplies to India to ensure that there is no further trade in these weapons to third and perhaps hostile elements. The technical-safeguards agreement is set to give India the capability of launching non-commercial satellites containing American components, in conjunction with a science and technology cooperation agreement. And there will be, as there tends to be, a strategic dialogue on a whole range of issues – from education to climate change, terrorism to nuclear non-proliferation.

All this sounds great, especially in the light of the current political situation and the goal that India has of earning a permanent seat in the United Nations Security Council. But who gets the better deal in this set of bargains? It sounds as if the United States is giving more than it is getting, but that country has not achieved its power and position in the world political scenario by being altruistic. Somewhere along the way, we have to be sure that we have not got hold of the short end of the stick and that we are indeed the power that Hillary Clinton has told us we are. And, if we are, we need to be sure that we know how to use it, be truly powerful, without abusing what we are and what we can be…

——————————————

Ramya Sarma is a Mumbai-based writer-editor.